PURPOSE: There is a growing need to localize prostate cancers on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to facilitate the use of image guided biopsy, focal therapy, and active surveillance follow up. Our goal was to develop a decision support system (DSS) for detecting and localizing peripheral zone prostate cancers by using machine learning approach to calculate a cancer probability map from multiparametric MR images (MP-MRI). METHODS: This IRB approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant retrospective study consisted of 31 patients (mean age and serum prostate specific antigen of 60.4 and 6.62 ng∕ml, respectively) who had MP-MRI at 3 T followed by radical prostatectomy. Seven patients were excluded due to technical issues with their MP-MRI (e.g., motion artifact, failure to perform all sequences). Cancer and normal regions were identified in the peripheral zone by correlating them to whole mount histology slides of the excised prostatectomy specimens. To facilitate the correlation, tissue blocks matching the MR slices were obtained using a MR-based patient-specific mold. Segmented regions on the MP-MRI were correlated to histopathology and used as training sets for the learning system that generated the cancer probability maps. Leave-one-patient-out cross-validation on the cancer and normal regions was performed to determine the learning system's efficacy, an evolutionary strategies approach (also known as a genetic algorithm) was used to find the optimal values for a set of parameters, and finally a cancer probability map was generated. RESULTS: For the 24 patients that were used in the study, 225 cancer and 264 noncancerous regions were identified from the region maps. The efficacy of DSS was first determined without optimizing support vector machines (SVM) parameters, where a region having a cancer probability greater than or equal to 50% was considered as a correct classification. The nonoptimized system had an f-measure of 85% and the Kappa coefficient of 71% (Rater's agreement, where raters are DSS and ground truth histology). The efficacy of the DSS after optimizing SVM parameters using a genetic algorithm had an f-measure of 89% and a Kappa coefficient of 80%. Thus, after optimization of the DSS there was a 4% increase in the f-measure and a 9% increase in the Kappa coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: This DSS provides a cancer probability map for peripheral zone prostate tumors based on endorectal MP-MRI. These cancer probability maps can potentially aid radiologists in accurately localizing peripheral zone prostate cancers for planning targeted biopsies, focal therapy, and follow up for active surveillance.
PURPOSE: There is a growing need to localize prostate cancers on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to facilitate the use of image guided biopsy, focal therapy, and active surveillance follow up. Our goal was to develop a decision support system (DSS) for detecting and localizing peripheral zone prostate cancers by using machine learning approach to calculate a cancer probability map from multiparametric MR images (MP-MRI). METHODS: This IRB approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant retrospective study consisted of 31 patients (mean age and serum prostate specific antigen of 60.4 and 6.62 ng∕ml, respectively) who had MP-MRI at 3 T followed by radical prostatectomy. Seven patients were excluded due to technical issues with their MP-MRI (e.g., motion artifact, failure to perform all sequences). Cancer and normal regions were identified in the peripheral zone by correlating them to whole mount histology slides of the excised prostatectomy specimens. To facilitate the correlation, tissue blocks matching the MR slices were obtained using a MR-based patient-specific mold. Segmented regions on the MP-MRI were correlated to histopathology and used as training sets for the learning system that generated the cancer probability maps. Leave-one-patient-out cross-validation on the cancer and normal regions was performed to determine the learning system's efficacy, an evolutionary strategies approach (also known as a genetic algorithm) was used to find the optimal values for a set of parameters, and finally a cancer probability map was generated. RESULTS: For the 24 patients that were used in the study, 225 cancer and 264 noncancerous regions were identified from the region maps. The efficacy of DSS was first determined without optimizing support vector machines (SVM) parameters, where a region having a cancer probability greater than or equal to 50% was considered as a correct classification. The nonoptimized system had an f-measure of 85% and the Kappa coefficient of 71% (Rater's agreement, where raters are DSS and ground truth histology). The efficacy of the DSS after optimizing SVM parameters using a genetic algorithm had an f-measure of 89% and a Kappa coefficient of 80%. Thus, after optimization of the DSS there was a 4% increase in the f-measure and a 9% increase in the Kappa coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: This DSS provides a cancer probability map for peripheral zone prostate tumors based on endorectal MP-MRI. These cancer probability maps can potentially aid radiologists in accurately localizing peripheral zone prostate cancers for planning targeted biopsies, focal therapy, and follow up for active surveillance.
Authors: S G Jhavar; C Fisher; A Jackson; S A Reinsberg; N Dennis; A Falconer; D Dearnaley; S E Edwards; S M Edwards; M O Leach; C Cummings; T Christmas; A Thompson; C Woodhouse; S Sandhu; C S Cooper; R A Eeles Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Jeroen Veltman; Henkjan J Huisman; Pieter Vos; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Paul F M Krabbe; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Young Jun Choi; Jeong Kon Kim; Namkug Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Eugene K Choi; Kyoung-Sik Cho Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Jeff Tanguay; Andrew J Evans; Ali-Tahir Hashmi; Gina Lockwood; John Trachtenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jin Tae Kwak; Sheng Xu; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Shijun Wang; Ronald M Summers Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: E D H Gates; J S Lin; J S Weinberg; S S Prabhu; J Hamilton; J D Hazle; G N Fuller; V Baladandayuthapani; D T Fuentes; D Schellingerhout Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shoshana B Ginsburg; Ahmad Algohary; Shivani Pahwa; Vikas Gulani; Lee Ponsky; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; James Thompson; Marley Pulbrock; Pekka Taimen; Robert Villani; Phillip Stricker; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Ivan Jambor; Anant Madabhushi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gregory J Metzger; Chaitanya Kalavagunta; Benjamin Spilseth; Patrick J Bolan; Xiufeng Li; Diane Hutter; Jung W Nam; Andrew D Johnson; Jonathan C Henriksen; Laura Moench; Badrinath Konety; Christopher A Warlick; Stephen C Schmechel; Joseph S Koopmeiners Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105